Arxiv:0812.0942V2

Home , Mesonic molecule

arXiv:0812.0942v2 [hep-ph] 2 Feb 2009 ∗ nlaeo bec rmteDprmn fPyis os Sta Tomsk Physics, of Department the from absence of leave On and ewrs arncmlcls ekdcy,lgt hr an charm light, decays, weak molecules, hadronic Keywords: 13.25.Ft,13.25.Hw,14.40.Lb,14.40.Nd numbers: PACS se a experiments. and provide future initial can in observables structure the for molecule framework predictions proposed the the molecules, in Since structures. esuywa easo h hr-adbto-tag mesons bottom-strange and charm- the of decays weak study We B ekdcy fhayhdo oeue novn h f the involving molecules hadron heavy of decays Weak s 1 57)with (5778) aj rn,Toa ush,Vlr .Lyubovitskij E. Valery Gutsche, Thomas Branz, Tanja f u e ogntle1,D706Tuign Germany Tübingen, D-72076 14, Morgenstelle der Auf 0 ntttfu hoeicePyi,Universität Tübinge Physik, für Theoretische Institut 90 ntefia tt yasmn arncmlcl inter molecule hadronic a assuming by state final the in (980) Dtd oebr6 2018) 6, November (Dated: eUiest,645 os,Russia Tomsk, 634050 University, te otmmesons bottom d stv olt ute ettehadronic the test further to tool nsitive nlsae r cuidb hadronic by occupied are states final D s ∗ 0 (2317), n, D s ∗ 1 rtto o their for pretation (2460), 0 ( 980 B s ∗ 0 (5725) ) 2

I. INTRODUCTION

Over the last decades it became clear that the meson mass spectrum shows a much richer structure than one might expect from the conventional constituent quark model assigning mesons as qq¯ states. For example, the structure of the light scalar mesons below 1 GeV such as the f0(980) have been in the focus. The strong and electromagnetic decay properties of the scalar f0 have been intensely studied in various models ranging from quarkonium and hybrid structures to compact tetraquarks and hadronic molecules (for overview see e.g. Ref. [1]). Newer experiments delivering data in the heavier mass region also attracted interest on mesons with open and ∗ hidden charm flavor configurations. Within this context one has to mention the Ds0(2317) which has the favored spin-parity assignments J P =0+ and which was first observed by BABAR at SLAC [2]. Shortly afterwards the CLEO collaboration [3] published their data on the axial Ds1(2460). Both resonances have been confirmed by Belle [4]. Up ∗ to now the structure issue of the Ds0(2317) and Ds1(2460) remains an open question. Both mesons have therefore been discussed within various structure assumptions and theoretical frameworks [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34]. ∗ ∗ Since their masses are located slightly below the DK and D K thresholds, the Ds0 and Ds1 mesons are clear ∗ ∗ candidates for hadronic molecules with the configurations Ds0(2317) = DK and Ds1(2460) = D K. In addition, ∗ extending this interpretation to the bottom sector, the scalar and axial-vector mesons Bs0(5725) and Bs1(5778) ∗ are treated as the equivalents to the charm-strange mesons Ds0(2317) and Ds1(2460). The bottom-strange coun- ∗ ∗ ¯ terparts Bs0(5725) and Bs1(5778) are consequently also described as bound states with Bs0(5725) = BK and ∗ Bs1(5778) = D K. The decay properties of these hadronic molecules were studied within the same effective La- grangian approach [31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37]. Within this covariant model for hadronic bound states, the molecular structure is considered by the compositeness condition Z = 0 [31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43] which implies that the renormalization constant of the hadronic molecule field is set equal to zero. The composite object therefore exists exclusively as a bound state of its constituents. This condition also provides a method to fix the coupling between the hadronic molecule and its constituent mesons in a self-consistent way. Furthermore, our theoretical framework also features finite size effects of the meson molecules controlled by size parameters which are the only adaptive variables. ∗ In the present paper the f0(980) properties are studied in weak hadronic decays of the scalar Ds0(2317) and its ∗ bottom-strange counterpart Bs0(5725) as well as in the weak non-leptonic decay processes of the axial-vector mesons Ds1(2460) and Bs1(5778). Since we deal with transition processes between hadronic molecules, the decay properties involve twice the effect of meson bound states: In the initial heavy meson system and in the final scalar f0. For this reason the results might provide a sensitive observable to test the issue of hadronic molecule structure accessible in future experiments. The paper is organized as follows. In the next section II we give a short introduction to the effective Lagrangian approach we use for the description of hadronic bound states. In section III we deal with the weak non-leptonic decays ∗ ∗ ∗ of the scalar mesons Ds0(2317) and Bs0(5725), where the meson molecule f0 appears in the final state. The D Kπ + + coupling gπ, which we need for the Ds1(2460) f0π transition, is derived in Sec. III from the Ds πf0 decay. Thereby we also obtain the D∗ Kπ decay width→ as a byproduct of our analysis. In Sec. IV we finally→ compute the → f0-production in hadronic decays of the axial-vector mesons Ds1(2460) and Bs1(5778).

II. BASICS OF THE MODEL

An assortment of mesons with masses lying close to two-body thresholds are good candidates for mesonic bound states and have therefore been studied assuming a hadronic molecule structure. For instance, in Refs. [31, 32, 33, 34, ∗ 35, 36, 37] we developed a ﬁeld-theoretical approach to study the properties of hadronic molecules (f0(980), Ds0(2317), ∗ Ds1(2460), Bs0(5725), Bs1(5778) and X(3872)) as bound states of two mesons. Since above states are close to the 3 corresponding thresholds, we used the following dominant composite structures:

1 + − 0 0 f0 = K K + K K¯ , √2 1 D ∗ + = D+K0 + D0K+ , s0 √2 1 D+ = D∗ +K0 + D∗ 0K+ , (1) s1 √2 1 B∗ 0 = B+K− + B 0K¯ 0 , s0 √2 1 B0 = B∗ +K− + B∗ 0K¯ 0 . s1 √2 ∗ ∗ The model for hadronic molecules H = f0(980), Ds0(2317), Ds1(2460), Bs0(5725) composed of two meson constituents M1 and M2 is thereby based on the nonlocal interaction Lagrangians

= g H(x) dy Φ (y2) M T (x + w y) M (x w y) + H.c. , (2) LHM1M2 H H 1 21 2 − 12 Z where M1 and M2 are the doublets of the meson fields: K+ D0 D∗ 0 B+ B∗ + K = ,D = ,D∗ = , B = , B∗ = (3) K0 D+ µ D∗ + B0 µ B∗ 0 µ µ and their antiparticles. The symbol T refers to the transpose of M1. The kinematic variable wij is defined by wij = mi/(mi + mj ) where m1 and m2 are the masses of M1 and M2. 2 The finite size of the hadronic molecule is introduced through the correlation function ΦH (y ) which describes the 2 distribution of the constituent mesons. Its Fourier transform ΦH (kE ) appears as the form factor in our calculations, where, in the present analysis, we have chosen a Gaussian form e Φ (k2 ) = exp( k2 /Λ2 ) (4) H E − E H in Euclidean momentum space. The size parametere ΛH controls the spatial extension of the hadronic molecule and is varied between 1 - 2 GeV. The local case (LC), describing point-like interaction, is defined for Λ . (Note this H → ∞ limit can be applied to convergent matrix elements only). The size parameters ΛH are the only adjustable parameters in our framework. The coupling constants between the hadronic molecules and its building blocks, the constituent mesons, are fixed self-consistently by the compositeness condition [31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43]. The dynamics of the bound state is therefore related to its constituents by setting the field renormalization constant to zero. Because of this constraint, the coupling constants are no input parameters but are fixed within this theoretical framework. The number of free variables is therefore reduced to the size parameters ΛH . For the generic hadronic molecule H = (M1M2), the compositeness condition is given by the relation Z =1 Σ′ (m2 )=0 , (5) H − H H ′ 2 2 ′ 2 where ΣH (mH ) = gH ΠH (mH ) is the derivative of the mass operator (see Fig. 1) and mH is the mass of hadronic molecule. In the mesonic molecule picture all decays proceed via intermediate states which are the composite mesons of the hadronic bound state. We describe the dynamics of the intermediate states by free propagators given by the standard expressions

d4k 1 iS (x y)= 0 TM(x)M †(y) 0 = e−ik(x−y)S (k), S (k)= (6) M − | | (2π)4i M M m2 k2 iǫ Z M − − for pseudoscalar and scalar ﬁelds M and by

4 µν µ ν 2 µν ∗ µ ∗ ν † d k −ik(x−y) µν µν g + k k /mM ∗ iSM ∗ (x y)= 0 TM (x)M (y) 0 = 4 e SM ∗ (k) , SM ∗ (k)= − 2 2 (7) − | | (2π) i m ∗ k iǫ Z M − − in case of vector and axial-vector ﬁelds M ∗. 4

M1 p p H H

FIG. 1: Mass operator of the hadronic molecule.

For the D and B meson masses we use the the values quoted in [44] and estimated in [24]:

+ 0 + ∗ + ∗ 0 mD =1.8696 GeV, mD =1.8648 GeV, mDs =1.96849 GeV, mD =2.01027 GeV, mD =2.00697 GeV,

mB+ =5.2791 GeV, mB0 =5.2795 GeV, mB∗ + =5.3251 GeV, mB∗ 0 =5.3251 GeV, (8)

∗ ∗ mDs0 =2.3178 GeV, mBs0 =5.725 GeV, mDs1 =2.4596 GeV, mBs1 =5.778 GeV.

Below we list our previous predictions for the couplings gH obtained for the respective molecular states. In particular, for the fKK¯ -coupling we obtained [36]

gf0 =3.09GeV (Λf0 = 1 GeV) , gf0 =2.9 GeV (LC) . (9)

∗ The coupling constants of the Ds0 and Ds1 mesons have already been calculated in [31, 32, 33]:

∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ gDs0 = 11.26GeV (ΛDs0 = 1 GeV), gDs0 =9.9 GeV (ΛDs0 = 2 GeV), gDs0 =8.98 GeV (LC) ,

gDs1 = 11.62GeV (ΛDs1 = 1 GeV) , gDs1 = 10.17GeV (ΛDs1 = 2 GeV) . (10)

∗ The results for the couplings of the Bs0 and Bs1 mesons to their constituents for diﬀerent size parameters Λ are [34]:

∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ gBs0 = 27.17GeV (ΛBs0 = 1 GeV), gBs0 = 23.21GeV (ΛBs0 = 2 GeV), gBs0 = 20.10 GeV (LC) ,

gBs1 = 25.64GeV (ΛBs1 = 1 GeV), gBs1 = 22.14GeV (ΛBs1 = 2 GeV) . (11)

∗ ∗ One should stress that the coupling constants gf0 , gD∗ and gB∗ of the scalar mesons f0, D , and B remain finite s0 s0 s0 s0 when we remove the cutoff ΛH . For the axial mesons Ds1 and Bs1 the couplings gDs1 and gBs1 are finite in the → ∞ µ ν 2 local limit when we neglect the longitudinal part k k /mM ∗ of the constituent vector meson propagator. In this case all the couplings are given analytically by

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 m m m m (m + m ) (m m ) z± = 1 − 2 ln 1 1 + H 1 2 − 1 − 2 arctan (12) g2 (4πm )2 m2 m 2 √ √ H H H 2 − mH λ ± λ − X − 2 2 2 where z± = m (m m ) and H ± 1 − 2 . λ = λ(m2 ,m2,m2)= m4 + m4 + m4 2m2 m2 2m2 m2 2m2m2 (13) H 1 2 H 1 2 − H 1 − H 2 − 1 2 is the K¨allen function. When writing the mass mH of the hadronic molecule in the form mH = m1 + m2 ǫ , where ǫ represents the binding energy, we can perform an expansion of g2 in powers of ǫ. The leading-order (√−ǫ) result H O ◦ 2 g (m + m )5/2 H = 1 2 √8ǫ (14) 4π √m1m2 in agreement with the one derived in Refs. [38, 42, 43, 45] based on a formalism which also used the compositeness condition ZH = 0. ◦ Numerical results for the coupling constants gH

◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ∗ ∗ gf0 =2.74 GeV , gDs0 =8.27 GeV , gDs1 =8.63 GeV , gBs0 = 19.63 GeV , gBs1 = 19.01 GeV . (15) compare well with the results obtained in the local case without the ǫ expansion and in the nonlocal case (see Eqs. (9) ◦ ± 0 and (10)). Note that in the calculation of gf0 we use the averaged kaon massm ¯ K = (mK + mK )/2. 5

◦ For consistency we also analyze the couplings gH and gH in the heavy quark limit (HQL), where the masses of the ∗ heavy mesons together with the heavy quark masses go to inﬁnity. The scaling of the coupling constant gDs0 in the ∗ HQL was already discussed in [32]. It was shown that gDs0 , both for the nonlocal and the local case, is proportional ∗ to the charm quark mass or the mass of the Ds0 meson (see Eqs.(57) and (58) of Ref. [32]). This result is simply ∗ extended to the cases of the Bs0 coupling and of the couplings of the axial states Ds1 and Bs1. In particular, for the nonlocal case the result for gH in the HQL is:

∞ 1 1 dα ˜ 2 2 = 2 2 ΦH (α) , (16) gH (4πmH ) 1+ µK α Z0 where µK = mK /ΛH . In the local case the HQL reads as:

2 1 1 mH 2 = 2 ln 2 . (17) gH (4πmH ) mK Hence, the coupling of the heavy-light molecules to the constituents is proportional to the heavy quark mass (or the molecule mass mH = mQ + (1)). Therefore, we deduce the following relations between the coupling constants gH in the HQL: O

∗ ∗ gDs0 = gDs1 , gBs0 = gBs1 , ∗ ∗ gB g s mB m s s0 = B 1 s0 B 1 . (18) ∗ ∗ gDs0 gDs1 ≃ mDs0 ≃ mDs1

◦ This scaling behavior is also evident from Eq. (14), where the couplings gH behave in the HQL as:

◦ 2 g 8ǫ H = m2 . (19) 4π H m r K ∗ ∗ Keeping in mind that the binding energy ǫ is approximately the same for all four states (Ds0, Bs0, Ds1, Bs1), we ◦ deduce that in the HQL the relations (18) are also valid for the leading-order couplings gH . Using the previous ◦ numerical values for the gH and gH couplings one can see that the HQL relations (18) are fulﬁlled with a good accuracy. It also explains the phenomenon that the bottom meson couplings are 2.2 - 2.8 times larger than the charm ones.

∗ ∗ III. Ds0(2317) AND Bs0(5725) DECAYS

In this section we deal with the f0-production properties in weak hadronic decays of the heavy scalar mesons ∗ ∗ ∗ + Ds0(2317) and Bs0(5725). Here the ﬁnal states of the Ds0 f0X decay are occupied by the charged mesons + + + → ∗ 0 X = π ,K ,ρ and the scalar f0. The decay pattern of the neutral Bs0 decay is richer and we deal with ﬁnal 0 0 0 ′ π ,K , ρ , ω, η and η mesons besides the f0. Since both heavy quark systems are assumed to be of molecular structure the decays proceed via intermediate kaons and D or B mesons as indicated in the diagrams of Figs. 2 and 3.

p1 p1 π+,K+, ρ+ π+,K+, ρ+ D0 D+ p p ∗+ − ∗+ 0 Ds0 K Ds0 K¯ p2 p2 + 0 K f0 K f0 (a) (b)

∗ + → + + + FIG. 2: Diagrams contributing to the Ds0 f0X decays with X = π , K and ρ . 6

p1 p1 X X B+ B0 p p ∗0 + ∗0 0 Bs0 K Bs0 K p2 p2 − 0 K f0 K¯ f0 (a) (b)

∗ 0 0 0 0 ′ FIG. 3: Diagrams contributing to the Bs0 → f0X decays with X = π , K , ρ , ω, η and η .

The couplings of the hadronic molecules to the constituent mesons in the loop are fixed by the compositeness condition. The coupling constants between the intermediate K, D and B mesons and the final decay products π,K,ρ,ωη and η′ are obtained from the D and B meson partial decay widths. The latter constants are given by following expressions, where we distinguish between final pseudoscalar (P ) and vector mesons (V ):

3 c(n) 16π Γ(H K P ) mH ′ g = 1 → , (P = K,π,η,η , H = D,B) , (20) HKP 2 2 2 2 s λ (mH ,mK ,mP ) 3 2 c(n) 64π Γ(H K V ) mH mV gHKV = 3 → , (V = ρ,ω, H = D,B) , (21) 2 2 2 2 s λ (mH ,mK ,mV ) with the K¨allen function λ(x,y,z) deﬁned in Eq. (13). The superscript c (n) denotes the decays of the charged (neutral) D and B mesons. The couplings governing the D∗ f P and B∗ f P decays we calculate from s0 → 0 s0 → 0 gD∗ gf0 s0 c 2 2 n 2 2 g ∗ = 2 gHKP I(mD+ ,mK0 )+ gHKP I(mD0 ,mK+ ) , (22) Ds0f0 P (4π)

gB∗ gf0 s0 c 2 2 n 2 2 g ∗ = 2 gHKP I(mD+ ,mK+ )+ gHKP I(mD0 ,mK0 ) , (23) Bs0f0 P (4π)

2 2 where I(mH ,mK ) denotes the loop integral 4 2 2 d k 2 p 2 p p p I(mH ,mK )= 2 Φf0 ( k )Φ ∗ (k + ωp ∗ ) SH k + p ∗ SK k SK k + , (24) π i − Hs0 − − 2 Hs0 − 2 Hs0 − 2 2 Z ∗ ∗ 0 ∗ + e e with Hs0 = Bs0 ,Ds0 . The decay widths are ﬁnally obtained from

2 g ∗ 1 ∗ Hs0f0 P 2 2 2 2 ∗ Γ(Hs0 f0 P ) = 3 λ (mHs ,mf0 ,mP ) . (25) → 16πm ∗ 0 Hs0 ∗ ∗ For the decays with a ﬁnal vector meson, Ds0/Bs0 f0V , we proceed in analogy. For simplicity, we restrict in the ∗ + + → ∗ following to the Ds0 f0ρ decay since the corresponding expressions for the bottom Bs0 decays only diﬀer in the masses and couplings,→ while the structure remains the same. Again, the Feynman integral

4 µ 2 2 d k 2 p 2 µ I (m ,m ) = Φ ( k ) Φ ∗ (k + ωp ∗ ) (2k + p ∗ ) D K π2i f0 − Ds0 − − 2 Ds0 Ds0 Z p p p SD k e + pD∗ eSK k SK k + (26) × − 2 s0 − 2 2 deﬁnes the transition matrix element µwhich is given by M ∗ µ gDs0 gf0 c µ 2 2 n µ 2 2 = g I (m + ,m 0 )+ g I (m 0 ,m + ) M (4π)2 HKρ D K HKρ D K 2 2 2 µ 2 2 2 µ = F (m ∗,m ,m ) p + F (m ∗ ,m ,m ) p . (27) 1 Ds0 f0 ρ f 2 Ds0 f0 ρ ρ 7

In the second line µ is expressed in terms of the form factors F and F by writing the matrix element as a linear M 1 2 combination of the f0 and ρ meson momenta pf and pρ. We perform this decomposition since the form factor F1 deﬁnes the coupling constant of the decay

2 2 2 F (m ,m ,m ) g ∗ (28) 1 Ds0 f0 ρ ≡ Ds0f0ρ and therefore characterizes the decay width with

2 g ∗ 3 ∗ + + Ds0f0ρ 2 2 2 Γ(D f ρ )= λ 2 (m ∗ ,m ,m ) . (29) s0 0 3 2 Ds0 f0 ρ → 64πm ∗ m Ds0 ρ First we indicate the results for the coupling constants at the secondary interaction vertex as deduced from the decays B/D KX (X = π, K,η′,η,ω,ρ). In Table I we summarize the branching ratios (Br) as taken from and the → c(n) resulting couplings gX (via Eqs. (20) and (21)) involving charged (c) and neutral (n) B and D mesons.

′ TABLE I: Coupling constants deduced from the decays B/D → KX with X = π, K, η , η, ω, ρ. n c Channel Br [44, 46] gX Channel Br [44, 46] gX D0 → π+K− (3.89 ± 0.05) % 2.88 · 10−6 GeV D+ → π+K¯0 (2.83 ± 0.18) % 0.14 · 10−5 GeV − − − − − D0 → K+K (3.93 ± 0.08) · 10 3 0.83 · 10 6 GeV D+ → K+K¯0 (5.7 ± 0.5) · 10 3 0.63 · 10 6 GeV − − − D0 → ρ+K (10.8 ± 0.7) % 2.92 · 10 6 D+ → ρ+K¯0 (7.3 ± 2.5) % 0.15 · 10 5

− − − − B0 → K0π0 (9.8 ± 0.6) · 10 6 3.36 · 10 8 GeV B+ → K+π0 (1.29 ± 0.06) · 10 5 3.73 · 10 8 GeV ′ − − ′ − − B0 → K0η (6.5 ± 0.4) · 10 5 0.91 · 10 7 GeV B+ → K+η (7.02 ± 0.25) · 10 5 8.84 · 10 8 GeV − − − − B0 → K0η < 1.9 · 10 6 < 0.15 · 10 7 GeV B+ → K+η (2.7 ± 0.9) · 10 6 0.17 · 10 7 GeV 0 → 0 ¯0 +2.0 · −7 · −8 + → + ¯0 ± · −6 · −8 B K K (9.6−1.8) 10 1.06 10 GeV B K K (1.36 0.27) 10 1.22 10 GeV − − − − B0 → K0ω (5.0 ± 0.6) · 10 6 1.41 · 10 9 B+ → K+ω (6.7 ± 0.8) · 10 6 1.57 · 10 9 − − − − B0 → K0ρ0 (5.4 ± 0.9) · 10 6 0.14 · 10 8 B+ → K+ρ0 (4.2 ± 0.5) · 10 6 1.23 · 10 9

∗ + In Tables II and III we summarize the results for the coupling constants and decay widths of the Ds0 (2317) and ∗ 0 Bs0 (5725) decays. We also indicate the dependence of the results for different sets of size parameters ΛH . Compared ∗ ∗ to the local case (LC) finite size effects induce a reduction of the Ds0 decay widths by up to 50%. For the Bs0 decays inclusion of finite size parameters leads to a reduction of the partial decay widths by up to a factor of 10. ∗ + For the Ds0 decays we predict a decay pattern with

+ + Γ(f0ρ ) > Γ(f0π) > Γ(f0K ) , (30) where the decay width of each sequential decay mode is reduced by about an order of magnitude. Here we introduce ∗ + ∗ 0 ∗ 0 ′ the shortened notation Γ(Ds0 H1H2)=Γ(H1H2). In the case of Bs0 the weak decay mode Bs0 f0η dominates the transitions with the decay hierarchy→ →

Γ(f η′) > Γ(f π) Γ(f ρ) Γ(f ω) > Γ(f K) Γ(f η) . (31) 0 0 ≈ 0 ≈ 0 0 ≈ 0

∗ + → + + + TABLE II: Ds0 f0X decay properties with X = π , K , ρ . ∗ + → + ∗ + → + ∗ + → + Ds0 f0π Ds0 f0K Ds0 f0ρ

ΛH [GeV] g ∗ [GeV] Γ [GeV] g ∗ [GeV] Γ [GeV] g ∗ Γ [GeV] Ds0f0π Ds0f0K Ds0f0ρ − − − − − − LC 1.83 · 10 6 2.35 · 10 14 6.51 · 10 7 2.75 · 10 15 2.37 · 10 6 1.60 · 10 13 −6 −14 −7 −15 −6 −13 ∗ · · · · · · ΛDs0 = 2, Λf0 = 1 1.34 10 1.26 10 4.86 10 1.53 10 1.95 10 1.08 10 −6 −14 −7 −15 −6 −13 ∗ · · · · · · ΛDs0 = 1, Λf0 = 1 1.28 10 1.14 10 4.68 10 1.42 10 1.98 10 1.11 10 8

∗ 0 0 ′ 0 0 TABLE III: Results for Bs0 → f0X decays with X = π , η , η, K , ω, ρ .

∗ ∗ local limit ΛBs0 = 2 GeV, Λf0 = 1 GeV ΛBs0 = 1 GeV, Λf0 = 1 GeV

∗ ∗ → ∗ ∗ → ∗ ∗ → Channel gBs0f0X ΓBs0 f0X [GeV] gBs0f0X ΓBs0 f0X [GeV] gBs0f0X ΓBs0 f0X [GeV] ∗ 0 0 −8 −19 −9 −20 −9 −20 Bs0 → f0π 1.30 · 10 GeV 5.66 · 10 5.43 · 10 GeV 9.93 · 10 3.86 · 10 GeV 5.03 · 10 ∗ 0 ′ −8 −18 −8 −19 −8 −19 Bs0 → f0η 3.35 · 10 GeV 3.67 · 10 1.43 · 10 GeV 6.69 · 10 1.03 · 10 GeV 3.49 · 10 ∗ 0 −9 −19 −9 −20 −9 −20 Bs0 → f0η < 5.89 · 10 GeV < 1.16 · 10 < 2.48 · 10 GeV < 2.05 · 10 < 1.77 · 10 GeV < 1.05 · 10 ∗ 0 0 −9 −20 −9 −20 −9 −21 Bs0 → f0K 4.19 · 10 GeV 5.88 · 10 1.77 · 10 GeV 1.04 · 10 1.26 · 10 GeV 5.32 · 10 ∗ 0 0 −10 −19 −10 −20 −10 −20 Bs0 → f0ρ 5.89 · 10 4.64 · 10 2.63 · 10 9.22 · 10 2.08 · 10 5.75 · 10 ∗ 0 −10 −19 −10 −19 −10 −20 Bs0 → f0ω 6.69 · 10 5.86 · 10 2.99 · 10 1.17 · 10 2.36 · 10 7.31 · 10

+ + IV. Ds → f0π decay

In this section we analyze the D+ f π+ decay in order to derive a value for the D∗Kπ coupling constant g . s → 0 π This coupling is needed for the calculation of the Ds1 f0π decay width discussed in the next section. In this context we also obtain the decay width Γ(D∗ Kπ) as an→ additional result. The D -decay is illustrated by the Feynman → s

p1 p1 π+ π+ D∗0 D∗+ p p + − + 0 Ds K Ds K¯ p2 p2 + 0 K f0 K f0 (a) (b)

FIG. 4: Ds-decay. diagrams of Fig. 4, where the decay width is deﬁned as 2 1 gDsf0π + + 2 2 2 2 Γ(Ds f0π )= 3 λ (mDs ,mf0 ,mπ) . (32) → 16 πmDs The decay coupling

gf gDs gπ 2 2 2 2 g s = I(m ∗ + ,m 0 )+ I(m ∗ 0 ,m + ) (33) D f0π (4π)2 D K D K

2 2 can be computed from the loop integral I(mD∗ ,mK ) given by 4 2 2 d k 2 p p µν p p p I(m ∗ ,m ) = Φ ( k ) p k k p s S k + p s S k S k + . (34) D K π2i f − π − − 2 µ − 2 − D ν D − 2 D K − 2 K 2 Z ∗ The coupling constant gDs ofe the DsD K interaction vertex has been estimated in two diﬀerent QCD sum rule approaches [47, 48], where both results do not vary signiﬁcantly from each other. Here we use the result of the QCD + + −3 sum rule approach in [47] with gDs = 2.02. By using the branching ratio Br(Ds f0π ) = (6.0 2.4) 10 [44], corresponding to Γ(D+ f π+)=7.9 10−15 GeV, g can be easily derived from→ (32) and (33): ± · s → 0 · π g =6.41 10−5 . (35) π · Now, the D∗ Kπ decay width is immediately given by → 2 g 3 ∗ π 2 2 2 2 Γ(D Kπ)= 5 λ (mD∗ ,mK .mπ) (36) → 48πmD∗ which leads to Γ(D∗ Kπ)=4.45 10−11 GeV . → · 9

V. Ds1(2460) AND Bs1(5778) DECAYS

In this section we study the properties of the weak transitions between the axial vector hadronic molecules Ds1(2460) and Bs1(5778) and the scalar f0(980). The determination of gπ in the last section enables us to compute the decay + + ∗ Ds1(2460) f0π within the KD bound state framework. The Feynman diagrams which contribute to this decay are illustrated→ in Fig. 5. In the ﬁrst step we deﬁne the matrix element of the D+ f π+ transition in terms of the s1 → 0

p1 p1 π+ π+ D∗0 D∗+ p p + − + 0 Ds1 K Ds1 K¯ p2 p2 + 0 K f0 K f0 (a) (b)

∗ FIG. 5: Ds1(2460) decay. form factors F± and p± = p p f ± π

µ gf gDs1 gπ µ 2 2 µ 2 2 = I (m ∗ + ,m 0 )+ I (m ∗ 0 ,m + ) M (4π)2 D K D K µ µ = F+(mDs1 ,mπ,mf0 )p+ + F−(mDs1 ,mπ,mf0 )p− , (37) where pf and pπ are the f0 and π momenta, respectively. The loop integral involving the constituent kaons and D∗ meson is of the structure

4 d k p 2 p µ 2 2 2 ∗ I (m ∗ ,m ) = Φ ( k )Φ s k + ωp p k D K π2i f0 − D − − 2 D π − − 2 ν Z µν p p p S ∗ k e + pDse1 SK k SK k + . (38) × D − 2 − 2 2 The form factor F− deﬁnes the coupling gDs1f0π = F−(mDs1 ,mπ,mf0 ) which characterizes the decay width given by the expression

2 3 gDs1f0π + + 2 2 2 2 Γ(D f0π ) = λ (m + ,m ,m + ) . (39) s1 5 Ds f0 π → 48πm + 1 Ds1

+ + We compute the decay width for Ds1 f0π for the f0 size parameter Λf0 =1 GeV while ΛDs1 is varied between 1 GeV and 2 GeV. → The results for the D f π decay width obtained within our hadronic molecule approach range from s1 → 0 −11 −5 Γ(D f π)=2.85 10 GeV, where g s =5.46 10 at Λ s = 1 GeV (40) s1 → 0 · D 1f0π · D 1 to

−11 −5 Γ(D f π)=4.35 10 GeV, where g s =6.74 10 at Λ s = 2 GeV. (41) s1 → 0 · D 1f0π · D 1

By analogy, we can also study the Bs1 f0X decay, where P represents a pseudoscalar ﬁnal state. However, since →∗ no data are available to determine the B f0P coupling strength gB∗ , we quote the width and corresponding decay ∗ coupling in dependence on gB . Varying ΛBs1 from 1.0 GeV to 2 GeV the width lies between

−6 2 ∗ Γ(B f π)=8.82 10 g ∗ GeV, where g s =0.016 g at Λ s = 1 GeV (42) s1 → 0 · B B 1f0π B B 1 and

−5 2 ∗ Γ(B f π)=4.03 10 g ∗ GeV, where g s =0.034 g at Λ s = 2 GeV. (43) s1 → 0 · B B 1f0π B B 1 10

VI. SUMMARY

In the present paper we focused on weak hadronic production processes of the scalar f0(980). For this purpose we ∗ + + studied the weak non-leptonic decays of the heavy mesons Ds0 , Ds1 as well as the Bs0 and Bs1 mesons assigned as the corresponding states in the bottom-strange sector. The formalism presented provides a clear and straightforward method to study the issue of hadronic molecules. Since all coupling constants are either fixed self-consistently by the compositeness condition or are deduced from experimental data, the only adaptive variables are the size parameters of the meson molecules which allow for their extended structure. Finite size effects are studied by varying the size parameters within a physically reasonable region between 1 and 2 GeV. Additionally we also compare the results with finite size effects to the local case related to point-like interactions. The molecular interpretation of both, the initial heavy mesons and the final decay product - the kaonic bound state f0 - in the weak decays possibly offers a sensitive tool to study the structure issue. In particular for the ∗ Ds0(2317) f0X transitions we give clear predictions for the decay pattern arising in the hadronic molecule picture, ∗→ both for Ds0 and f0. Similarly, the result for the process Ds1 f0π is a straightforward consequence of the molecular ∗ → interpretation. In addition the D f0π decay properties can also be used to get information on the f0 substructure. Presently no comparative calculations,→ as for example in the full or partial quark-antiquark interpretation of the ∗ + + Ds0 ,Ds1 and f0 mesons, exist. Hence, the real sensitivity of the results for the weak processes studied here on details of the meson structure remains to be seen. But judging from previous model calculations of for example the dominant ∗ observed decay modes of the Ds0 and Ds1 a strong dependence on the structure models can be expected. Therefore, upcoming experiments measuring the weak production processes involving the scalar meson f0(980) could lead to new insights into the meson spectrum and its structure issue.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the DFG under Contracts No. FA67/31-1, No. FA67/31-2, and No. GRK683. This research is also part of the EU Integrated Infrastructure Initiative Hadronphysics project under Contract No. RII3-CT-2004-506078 and the President Grant of Russia “Scientiﬁc Schools” No. 817.2008.2.

[1] E. Klempt and A. Zaitsev, Phys. Rept. 454, 1 (2007). [2] B. Aubert et al. (BABAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 242001 (2003). [3] D. Besson et al. (CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 68, 032002 (2003). [4] Y. Mikami et al. (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 012002 (2004). [5] T. Barnes, F. E. Close and H. J. Lipkin, Phys. Rev. D 68, 054006 (2003). [6] E. van Beveren and G. Rupp, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 012003 (2003). [7] H. Y. Cheng and W. S. Hou, Phys. Lett. B 566, 193 (2003). [8] S. Godfrey, Phys. Lett. B 568, 254 (2003). [9] P. Colangelo and F. De Fazio, Phys. Lett. B 570, 180 (2003). [10] W. A. Bardeen, E. J. Eichten, and C. T. Hill, Phys. Rev. D 68, 054024 (2003). [11] E. E. Kolomeitsev and M. F. M. Lutz, Phys. Lett. B 582, 39 (2004) [12] Fayyazuddin and Riazuddin, Phys. Rev. D 69, 114008 (2004). [13] S. Ishida, M. Ishida, T. Komada, T. Maeda, M. Oda, K. Yamada and I. Yamauchi, AIP Conf. Proc. 717, 716 (2004). [14] Y. I. Azimov and K. Goeke, Eur. Phys. J. A 21, 501 (2004). [15] P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio, and R. Ferrandes, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 19, 2083 (2004). [16] T. Mehen and R. P. Springer, Phys. Rev. D 70, 074014 (2004) [17] A. Hayashigaki and K. Terasaki, Prog. Theor. Phys. 114, 1191 (2005). [18] P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio, and A. Ozpineci, Phys. Rev. D 72, 074004 (2005). [19] F. E. Close and E. S. Swanson, Phys. Rev. D 72, 094004 (2005). [20] W. Wei, P. Z. Huang and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 73, 034004 (2006). [21] J. Lu, X. L. Chen, W. Z. Deng and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 73, 054012 (2006). [22] J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D 74, 076006 (2006). [23] E. S. Swanson, Phys. Rept. 429, 243 (2006). [24] F. K. Guo, P. N. Shen, H. C. Chiang and R. G. Ping, Phys. Lett. B 641, 278 (2006); F. K. Guo, P. N. Shen, and H. C. Chiang, Phys. Lett. B 647, 133 (2007). [25] X. Liu, Y. M. Yu, S. M. Zhao and X. Q. Li, Eur. Phys. J. C 47, 445 (2006). [26] Z. G. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 75, 034013 (2007). 11

[27] D. Gamermann, L. R. Dai, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. C 76, 055205 (2007). [28] M. F. M. Lutz and M. Soyeur, Nucl. Phys. A 813, 14 (2008). [29] F. K. Guo, S. Krewald and U. G. Meissner, Phys. Lett. B 665, 157 (2008). [30] F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart, S. Krewald and U. G. Meissner, Phys. Lett. B 666, 251 (2008). [31] A. Faessler, T. Gutsche, V. E. Lyubovitskij, and Y. L. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 76, 114008 (2007). [32] A. Faessler, T. Gutsche, V. E. Lyubovitskij, and Y. L. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 76, 014005 (2007). [33] A. Faessler, T. Gutsche, S. Kovalenko and V. E. Lyubovitskij, Phys. Rev. D 76, 014003 (2007); A. Faessler, T. Gutsche and V. E. Lyubovitskij, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 61, 127 (2008). [34] A. Faessler, T. Gutsche, V. E. Lyubovitskij, and Y. L. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 77, 114013 (2008). [35] Y. B. Dong, A. Faessler, T. Gutsche and V. E. Lyubovitskij, Phys. Rev. D 77, 094013 (2008). [36] T. Branz, T. Gutsche, and V. E. Lyubovitskij, Eur. Phys. J. A 37, 303 (2008). [37] T. Branz, T. Gutsche, and V. E. Lyubovitskij, Phys. Rev. D 78, 114004 (2008). [38] S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. 130, 776 (1963). [39] A. Salam, Nuovo Cim. 25, 224 (1962). [40] G. V. Efimov and M. A. Ivanov, The Quark Confinement Model of Hadrons (IOP Publishing, Bristol & Philadelphia, 1993). [41] M. A. Ivanov, M. P. Locher and V. E. Lyubovitskij, Few Body Syst. 21, 131 (1996); M. A. Ivanov, V. E. Lyubovitskij, J. G. Körner and P. Kroll, Phys. Rev. D 56, 348 (1997); M. A. Ivanov, J. G. Körner, V. E. Lyubovitskij and A. G. Rusetsky, Phys. Rev. D 60, 094002 (1999); A. Faessler, T. Gutsche, M. A. Ivanov, J. G. Körner and V. E. Lyubovitskij, Phys. Lett. B 518, 55 (2001); A. Faessler, T. Gutsche, M. A. Ivanov, J. G. Körner, V. E. Lyubovitskij, D. Nicmorus and K. Pumsa- ard, Phys. Rev. D 73, 094013 (2006); A. Faessler, T. Gutsche, B. R. Holstein, V. E. Lyubovitskij, D. Nicmorus and K. Pumsa-ard, Phys. Rev. D 74, 074010 (2006); A. Faessler, T. Gutsche, B. R. Holstein, M. A. Ivanov, J. G. Korner and V. E. Lyubovitskij, Phys. Rev. D 78, 094005 (2008). [42] V. Baru, J. Haidenbauer, C. Hanhart, Yu. Kalashnikova, and A. E. Kudryavtsev, Phys. Lett. B 586 (2004) 53. [43] C. Hanhart, Y. S. Kalashnikova, A. E. Kudryavtsev, and A. V. Nefediev, Phys. Rev. D 75, 074015 (2007). [44] C. Amsler et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Lett. B 667, 1 (2008). [45] F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart and U. G. Meissner, Phys. Lett. B 665, 26 (2008). [46] S. Eidelman et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Lett. B 592, 1 (2004). [47] Z. G. Wang and S. L. Wan, Phys. Rev. D 74, 014017 (2006). [48] M. E. Bracco, A. Cerqueira Jr., M. Chiapparini, A. Lozea, and M. Nielsen, Phys. Lett. B 641, 286 (2006).